This report describes the current state of flattening filter‐free (FFF) radiotherapy beams implemented on conventional linear accelerators, and is aimed primarily at practicing medical physicists. The Therapy Emerging Technology Assessment Work Group of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) formed a writing group to assess FFF technology. The published literature on FFF technology was reviewed, along with technical specifications provided by vendors. Based on this information, supplemented by the clinical experience of the group members, consensus guidelines and recommendations for implementation of FFF technology were developed. Areas in need of further investigation were identified. Removing the flattening filter increases beam intensity, especially near the central axis. Increased intensity reduces treatment time, especially for high‐dose stereotactic radiotherapy/radiosurgery (SRT/SRS). Furthermore, removing the flattening filter reduces out‐of‐field dose and improves beam modeling accuracy. FFF beams are advantageous for small field (e.g., SRS) treatments and are appropriate for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). For conventional 3D radiotherapy of large targets, FFF beams may be disadvantageous compared to flattened beams because of the heterogeneity of FFF beam across the target (unless modulation is employed). For any application, the nonflat beam characteristics and substantially higher dose rates require consideration during the commissioning and quality assurance processes relative to flattened beams, and the appropriate clinical use of the technology needs to be identified. Consideration also needs to be given to these unique characteristics when undertaking facility planning. Several areas still warrant further research and development. Recommendations pertinent to FFF technology, including acceptance testing, commissioning, quality assurance, radiation safety, and facility planning, are presented. Examples of clinical applications are provided. Several of the areas in which future research and development are needed are also indicated.PACS number: 87.53.‐j, 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Ly, 87.55.‐x, 87.55.N‐, 87.56.bc

No abstract

The commercial cylindrical ionization chamber ionization integration accuracy of dynamically moving fields was evaluated. The ionization chambers were exposed to long (14 cm), narrow (0.6, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 cm) 6 MV and 18 MV fields. Rather than rely on the linear accelerator to reproducibly scan across the chamber, the chambers were scanned beneath fixed portals. A water-equivalent phantom was constructed with cavities that matched the chambers and placed on a computer-controlled one-dimensional table. Computer-controlled electrometers were utilized in continuous charge integrate mode, with 10 samples of the charge, along with time stamps, acquired for each chamber location. A reference chamber was placed just beneath the linear accelerator jaws to adjust for variations in linear accelerator dose rate. The scan spatial resolution was selected to adequately sample regions of steep dose gradient and second spatial derivative (curvature). A fixed measurement in a 10 x 10 cm2 field was used to normalize the profiles to absolute chamber response. Three ionization chambers were tested, a microchamber (0.009 cm3), a Farmer chamber (0.6 cm3) and a waterproof scanning chamber (0.125 cm3). The larger chambers exhibited severe under-response at the small field's centers, but all of the chambers, independent of orientation, accurately integrated the ionization across the scanned portal. This indicates that the tested ionization chambers provide accurate integrated charges in regions of homogeneous dose regions. Partial integration (less than the field width plus the chamber length plus 2 cm), yielded integration errors of greater than 1% and 2% for 6 MV and 18 MV, respectively, with errors for the Farmer chamber of greater than 10% even for the 4 cm wide field.

No abstract

Intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD) is the leading cause of debilitating spinal disorders such as chronic lower back pain. Aging is the greatest risk factor for IDD. Previously, we demonstrated IDD in a murine model of a progeroid syndrome caused by reduced expression of a key DNA repair enzyme. This led us to hypothesize that DNA damage promotes IDD. To test our hypothesis, we chronically exposed adult wild-type (Wt) and DNA repair-deficient Ercc1−/Δ mice to the cancer therapeutic agent mechlorethamine (MEC) or ionization radiation (IR) to induce DNA damage and measured the impact on disc structure. Proteoglycan, a major structural matrix constituent of the disc, was reduced 3-5x in the discs of MEC- and IR-exposed animals compared to untreated controls. Expression of the protease ADAMTS4 and aggrecan proteolytic fragments were significantly increased. Additionally, new PG synthesis was reduced 2-3x in MEC- and IR-treated discs compared to untreated controls. Both cellular senescence and apoptosis were increased in discs of treated animals. The effects were more severe in the DNA repair-deficient Ercc1−/Δ mice than in Wt littermates. Local irradiation of the vertebra in Wt mice elicited a similar reduction in PG. These data demonstrate that genotoxic stress drives degenerative changes associated with IDD.